She told the commission that significant discrepancies had come to light regarding the preparation of a Section 28(1) authorisation application and the Section 27 referral that should have preceded it. “I immediately appreciated the gravity of the situation,” Ramsamy told the commission. The central concern, she explained, was that the authorisation application appeared to have been prepared before a formal Section 27 referral affidavit existed. I did not have the preliminary report either,” Ramsamy told the commission. The commission stood her testimony down, with her evidence scheduled to resume on August 14 as the inquiry continues examining the circumstances surrounding the Medicare24 investigation and the processes followed by Idac officials.